Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 26

Articles for every storm
Don't kill me!! I'm just the messenger, sorta. There's been some discussion going around, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Should every storm of this season have an article? I know it's a touchy subject, but it would eliminate the (I think so) useless list of page, and every storm has a TCR already. What do you think? Hurricanehink 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but dont forget about the unconfirmed STS28.I'd move 22 into the Tammy-like Marco in the Klaus in 1990.HurricaneCraze32


 * I used to be one of the advocates of the idea, but I've changed my mind recently. Articles for most of the storms would look somewhat comic, like someone just filled out a "hurricane page" template and stuck it somewhere, and no more than a couple of sentences can be written about anything but the meteorological history of most of the storms. Most of them just don't merit articles on their own; they weren't notable. — Cuivi é  nen , Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 20:00 (UTC)


 * I cant think of one reason why every storm would need an article. I seriously cant imagine anyone looking for an article on TS Lee.  Jamie  |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone interested in hurricanes might. I'll apply the logic I have been using elsewhere. Every episode of the Simpsons has its own article... all 385 of them. Certainly any storm from this season is as notable as an episode of the Simpsons, including Lee. You can always put more than just storm history. Other sections for all of them could include predictions (watches/warnings or blown intensity forecasts), trivia (nth storm, I'm you could find other trivia), and aftermath (some storms might have little, but every depression contributed to something else... 19 could mention possible involvement with 22). Another reason why I am bringing this is up is because people are not convinced for the existence of Vince, Epsilon, and Zeta. They say if those non-notable storms have articles then all others should too. Hurricanehink 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to say that this kind of logic is difficult to argue with. Originally I was of the mindset that individual articles on every single storm was overkill.  When an article was written up for Alpha I was against it due to a lack of specific notability for that storm, as being the first storm to exceed the given list of names didn't cut it in my book (making a case for notability due to the modest death toll was a more solid reason yet still debatable).  That said, it seems Wikipedia is becoming a vast repository of general knowledge with less and less emphasis on what one might consider traditionally encyclopedic topics.  I would also argue that a discussion of even the most minor tropical storm contains more scientific and historical significance than a plot summary of any given episode of any given popular television show.  While I would not be one to write articles for every storm, I would have to support their creation. Arkyan 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need to create them. CrazyC83 wrote an article for each storm a few months back. All we have to do is bring them back. The hard work is deciding whether to bring them back. Of course, they would have to be updated with some more info, but they are largely done. Hurricanehink 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Even SpongeBob Squarepants has articles for each episode! I highly support the creation of articles for each storm. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point of wikipedia to have as much information as possible? So surely everything that could have an article should.(yes, i am changing sides..)  Jamie  |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * More articles does not mean more information, and CrazyC83's articles do not have more information. — Cuivi é  nen , Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 22:09 (UTC)

Please don't write an article for the sake of just writing an article - if there's enough information for you to expand outside the main season page or the list of storms, do it, but if it is going to be the same info as the one on List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, just pasted on a different place, then there's no point in doing so. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem - CrazyC83's articles have no information not on the list page, and the information is perfectly well covered there. Also, please don't bring in outside examples as whether SpongeBob SquarePants episodes are notable or not is not part of the discussion (and much more can be written about the plot summary of a TV show episode than about a weak tropical storm). I definitely think that Tammy, Maria and Delta at least need to be merged back into the list, and maybe even Vince and Epsilon. (Zeta stays alongside Hurricane Alice, though I'm a bit skeptical there, too. Unless we get more concrete damage information for Beta that indicates that it really did do a lot of damage, it, too, is non-notable.) — Cuivi é  nen , Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 22:06 (UTC)

I agree in principle with giving the storm an article - theres the analogy with the TV shows (a lot more can be written), the fact that the french wikipedia is on an every storm gets an article and to be honest what harm does Tropical Storm Lee (2005) existing do? As long as the content is accessible on from the season whats wrong with it (and there can always be more padding to a storm article)? But I am concerned about is how doing this will affect other seasons, I would like to see consistency between them not having 2005 as a special case. I've put 20 questions on my talk page on this maybe peoples responses to them will be interesting -- Nilfanion 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing that can be added to single-storm articles that could be very interesting: data on differences between operational and reanalysis data. (To anticipate: an analysis of that data might violate no original research, but a list of differences is just a reorganization of the data and encouraged according to that page.) --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that. See? There's more than storm history. Differences, trivia, and predictions could fill all of the articles. Hurricanehink 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's something I have started working on in the Timeline article. It has hardly been touched since the TCRs came out, which means things like Subtropical Vince wasnt mentioned. As I see it that article is what happened, according to the best information (the TCRs), not what they said happened as the season was underway. Therefore things like the comment about Epsilons operational downgrade isnt necessary. -- Nilfanion 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. I would not eliminate the "List of" page but I would gut it, turning it into the simple list its title calls on it to be. (Perhaps the dates and for the more significant storms a brief statement of the signicance could be included, but that is it. For example: (I would not do more than that since we already have the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics page.)
 * Hurricane Katrina (23-31 August) flooded New Orleans, killed ~1600 people.

Keep in mind that part of the issue is how to do the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Wikipedia is excellent at documenting ongoing events. As this year's season progresses, individual articles would be build up and maintained when the relevant information is fresh and the inerest is at it's greatest. That is what makes this idea viable. --EMS | Talk 23:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't like to remove all the detail from the List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms article and move it to subpages, as every season article that has been done so far contains considerable information about the storms of that season, and the List article follows that standard. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, the list of page doesn't have to be removed entirely, but it should be condensed greatly to, let's say, 1 paragraph each. It is quite long as it is. For those of you who are still against it, what are you still not convinced about? Hurricanehink 00:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing the list article is missing is actual tabular lists, like List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and List of retired Atlantic hurricanes have. — jdorje (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But then with the way the additional pages have developed - thats overlapping with 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics isnt it? Another page looking at serious revision then -- Nilfanion 00:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The statistics page should be removed and merged into the records page (which itself needs even more work) or the list page. The current tabular format on the statistics page is terrible, and the overall page lacks organization or any narrative thread.  Such organization is appropriate for a list article; see List of retired Atlantic hurricanes for a well-organized list article, or 1997 Pacific hurricane season for a somewhat less refined version of the lists (I think that was Madeline's initial experiment with the list format).  — jdorje (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) At least I don't see any apparent benefit from eliminating the list. It would break completely the formatting with respect to the rest of the hurricane seasons, as well as making information about all the storms at a glance more difficult to find. I am not against adding more information for other articles, but I don't see why the list page should be removed. Remember that there are other users who would still like to merge that page to this one, and disseminating information everywhere would start merge/unmerge wars. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The list page should not be elimitated but the level of detail in the storms (text) section could be cut back. It currently has the highest level of detail of any AHS storms list.  The length is okay at the moment but if we (as I think we should) add tables to the page it will (probably) be too long. — jdorje (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that we need consistent criteria for all seasons, and right now we don't have them. Currently several 2005 storms (particularly Vince, Epsilon, Maria, and Tammy, none of which are "notable" according to wikiproject practices) have articles; if articles were created for comparable storms for older seasons or other basins they would be merged in short order. Article quality or length cannot justify this, since several of the 2005 storms articles have no more content than older storm articles written by Storm05 that have been merged. I am not locked in to any one set of criteria, nor am I set on choosing criteria to merge or keep any particular storm article. I just want us to choose criteria that we can apply evenly to all seasons and all basins. Thus if we allow articles to exist for all 2005 storms (which I am somewhat in favor of), or allow just some articles on seemingly non-notable storms to stay, we have to decide why we are allowing them and then apply that same reasoning to all seasons and all basins. — jdorje (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, giving all 2005 storms articles completely negates any concept of "notability" as a criterion for any storm . It may be that the criteria for older storms articles may become 'its at least as good as TS Lee's article in quality and content so it stays'. As the NHC has all TCRs available back to 1958 this might mean that every named storm will eventually get an article - and is that a bad thing? If we do go down the 'every storm has an article' route then working into the past should be done systematically - get this seasons storms articles to 'good' then 2004s etc -- Nilfanion 10:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've stayed out of the debate, since all you need to do is go back to what I had written in the storm articles for even the least-notable storms (i.e. Lee, Franklin, Philippe, Gert, the depressions). The TCR's also help out. I don't think an all-article policy should (at least right now) extend out to past seasons, but for 2006 and future seasons in all basins (or at least the Atlantic and the Eastern and Central Pacific), such should be the case. One other advantage for such: it ends any debate about when to go ahead with the article, as it would get it as soon as it forms. CrazyC83 02:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've believed for a long while that there is no harm in letting storms have their own articles. It will simply encourage more information, unlike now, because removing information to make the list shorter is being encouraged. -- tomf688 {talk} 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this statement on information. Wikipedia and especially the tropical cyclone groups now have enough editors that each storm can have a good article written about it more-or-less at the time of its existance (which the later TCR being used to "polish" it).  I really think that the use of individual srorm articles is a good policy to follow going forward.  I do not want people to worry about consistency with the past, which is the way it is because this is what the community was able to support when those pages were created.  Let's instead focus on the future, and how to create the best content from now on. --EMS | Talk 06:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. The past is done, and now we should work on organizing the future. Sure, starting an article right when the storm forms might be a little much, but it eliminates the discussion for when to break an article off. Hurricanehink 16:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, please vote yes or no below. There are still a few unanswered questions that need to be discussed, though. Should all depressions have articles as well? Should all future storms have articles? I vote yes for the both. You can't have criteria for this season then change. In addition, if all storms will have articles in the future, then this eliminates the problem of when to break off an article. The new answer will be right away when a storm forms. Remember, though, this discussion is only for no earlier than 2005, so there's no worrying whether there'll be more work for older seasons. Hurricanehink 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

...Is everyone gone? Is there any more discussion? Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the List page
There's no need to do it. If each new storm article overlaps fully with the list, we don't need a storm article. If they don't overlap, then a good summary of the storm should remain on the list. After all, no one ever complained about Hurricane Katrina having two paragraphs on the page when it clearly had a (then 250 kb) article that certainly covered the topic. — Cuivi é  nen , Thursday, 6 April 2006 @ 01:11 (UTC)


 * I think its sensible to consider this, not rule it out of hand. The content which has been removed from the main season article has been spread into a mess of other articles. The lists page could be heavily trimmed in terms of storm descriptions (especially the minors if they get articles), and perhaps some lists as in the 1997 Pacific hurricane season could be added. Didn't the statistics page originally come about as a desire to remove the ACE table from the season page? That table is better suited to the lists page, which is in keeping with older seasons. The statistics page and the records one should be trimmed and merged ultimately.


 * The way I see it you look at the season article for a run-down of the season, storm articles for details of that specific storm, the lists for a quick comparison of the storms and the records/statistics for the all the superlatives -- Nilfanion 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How's this? The list article will remain unchanged. The main article's season summary will only mention a few storms, including Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Vince, Wilma, Alpha, and Zeta. This way, it can be a lot shorter, yet not duplicate information three times for storms like Lee. Is that fair? Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Lee (2005)
I don't think there is any dispute here that Lee is the least worthy of the storms (exclude the depressions for now). I have reinstated Lee's article and have added things to it as suggested in this discussion. If you don't approve of this article please hold off for now and those who want individual storm articles make this, the least notable one of the season an article worthy of keeping. -- Nilfanion 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great article for a "least-notable" storm! CrazyC83 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, didn't you write it CrazyC83? Anyway, it is a good article though some parts seem a little forced. — jdorje (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added every fact I could think of to the article, as per hurricanehink's comments, it probably needs a bit more work on still to be the 'best possible'. I chose the section headings in the forecast section so that they could provide a basis for the additional stuff on the other minor storms (the ones which had landfalls....). -- Nilfanion 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice! Hurricanehink 16:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to tweak it some more, there were a couple errors in grammar but I thought a link to List of notable tropical cyclones seemed inappropriate for this storm :D -- Nilfanion 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We could go even further down this route. How about if we re-create the best track pressure and windspeed graphs from the TCR and put them into the article? We could go overboard and add the best track table too, but that would dominate the article -- Nilfanion 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The road goes way too far down if we include pressure and windspeed graphs, and I think we've gone down far enough to prove our point. Same with best track table. We should work all of the information from those tables into the article, not make people intrepret them by themselves. Hurricanehink 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Crazy, can i have the link for the articles to all of your articles?HurricaneCraze32 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Those articles are all still in existence; just look in the revision history of Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) for instance. It's probably not worth making the other articles just yet, only pro-article people have commented so far on the new Lee one and I think its wise to hold off until those editors with differing opinions can review it. I did this article as a test to show what could be done, it's up to the whole community now to decide to move forwards or not. -- Nilfanion 19:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Up to the community? Not necessarily.  Anyone who is bold enough and can make a quality article/stub could take the initiative at any time. -- tomf688 {talk} 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nilfanion,the link doesnt work.HurricaneCraze32 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the article is currently a redirect this link will get you to it -- Nilfanion 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have put the Lee article up on WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging, someone will sooner or later so lets get that rolling now - and see if a keep decision happens. I agree be bold but when you know the other group will likely be bold enough to revert... -- Nilfanion 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem with wanting 2005 storms to each have their own article is trying to find a consistent set of criteria for other seasons and basins. 2 consistent criteria spring to mind: "If this storms season article was as detailed as 2005 AHS, would this article offer more information than the season articles summary of the storm?" Or "If this storms article was merged into the season article would become excessively large, then if the storm article is at least as good as TS Lee's it can stay". I think the second one is quite good, as it encourages more detail to older seasons before lesser storms get branched out. -- Nilfanion 21:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this simple criterium of having an article for every storm should only apply to 2005 and future seasons. Article criteria will remain for past seasons (which basically means a well-written article with decent information not in the season article). Hurricanehink 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is I could go make an article on Hurricane Ivan from 1998 and it could be comparable in quality to Lee (same information on the web is available for all seasons from 98 on). Having an article on an old storm discourages development of the season article and I think whatever policy is adopted to older seasons should discourage storm articles until the season article is a very high quality. This seems straightforward enough to me, and if editors are inclined to develop them it means the older seasons could all become comparable to 2005. -- Nilfanion 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. That makes sense. This should be the policy unless one feels they can start an article from scratch and add a ton of new information that would be too much for the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the season article needs improvement, the new information should be added to the season article first, and if there can be more information than necessary for a decent season article, feel free to make a storm article. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha, Lee's article looks well weird. Just try to imagine it as Wikipedia's featured article! Pobbie Rarr 07:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who are unsure about tropical depressions, I have had an attempt at Tropical Depression 19 in my user area. I'm not convinced that we should bother with the depressions, it feels like I was scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Furthermore with future seasons I say START any storm article at TS status. Theres no need for all the TD redirects as if we started with depressions.-- Nilfanion 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jdorje, is the best-track table in the abbreviated TCRs enough for you to do their track maps? If they get articles I think is useful for them to exist -- Nilfanion 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can make track maps from the TCRs but it is basically a hack job. I was intending to replace them with the tracks from the full dataset, once that dataset is released for 2006 (hopefully many other storms will need updating too).  I am against having track maps (or articles, or subsections in the storms list for that matter) for depressions because they are not considered for analysis by the HRD (meaning they don't get included in the best track dataset, meaning they are never re-analysed, and meaning they screw up the section numbers); however, I may be in the minority here (?). — jdorje (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NSLE mentioned 2004 articles below, (Harvey etc don't have articles just yet, I just made the Lee one as a testbed, though the others look like they will follow). Looking at the storms section for 2004 and comparing it to the 2005 list they are comparable in length, so 2004 storm articles seem borderline justified to me. Not convinced 2003 or earlier seasons are quite there just yet. -- Nilfanion 10:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try Nilfanion on the TD article, but, seeing that, TD's aren't needed. There can be a little section in the season history for depressions, but now I see there's no need for depressions. Hurricanehink 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think trying to make an article on a TD is a bridge too far. The NHCs attitude should guide us here; they bother with full TCRs for all Tropical Storms, even ones as menial as Lee, but only give abbreviated ones for the depressions. -- Nilfanion 11:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Next question. Should we add the links to the season article yet? Hurricanehink 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * NOOOOOOO! Stop! This is ridiculous! I thought we had put all this nonsence aside! We don't need an article for every freaking thunderstorm that develops in the Atlantic! I'm tired of saying it. I don't care if it's better written than a Clive Cussler novel, we don't need it. Articles should only be created if the amount of useful information exceeds reasonable length (about two and a half to three paragraphs). If it's within those boundaries, it should stay in the main article and all new info should be added to the main article. What good is it to have all the useful information seperate from the main article with just a pitiful little summery in the main article itself? Am I the only person who sees how bad of an idea that is? This is one of those ridiculous propositions that just drive me crazy. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 22:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, like I said above, I agree. If the season article needs improvement, the new information should be added to the season article first, and if there can be more information than necessary for a decent season article, feel free to make a storm article. So, a requirement for a storm article would be for the season article to be bursting at the seams. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree Titoxd, but I think 2005 is at that point, why else do we have this article, the lists and the statistics pages and we can certainly add more in (the forecast in Lee is new - if badly in need of a copyedit. If we do what Eric would like and merge the lists back into the main article, I think that counts as bursting at the seams. 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just the storms page, the records page and timeline I don't have a problem with. The splitting, seperating and the duplicating of information between these two articles is ridiculous. It should all be in one place. But aparently a 70 kb page scares some people. I think the way 2005 AHS is being handled overall just sucks. Crappy menial sub-articles, splitting of vital information into multiple places and then duplicating them again when we finally realize how badly we need the info we split off. I have been angered and frustrated by what many people have done on this page so many times that I'm nearing the point of complete capitulation. If that happens, I will only work on articles from 2004 back largely just to improve them and make sure that all the things that happened to this article don't happen to the other articles. I've just had way too much agrivation on this article. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 21:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of it is necessary. I, for one, like the season page the way it is. How's this to eliminate duplicated information (I also said it above). The season summary on the main article page would only include the main storms, so it wouldn't duplicate the information as much. The list page would be unchanged. Then, every storm could get an article without much duplicated information. The list page could just be a summary of the storm, while the article can go fully into depth (yes, there's more than a storm history for Lee). Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

More articles
Have added Arlene, Bret, Franklin and Gert. No point adding any more just yet, might as well wait for the poll to run its course. I think some more work is needed on them, like copyediting for a start. Also, I have been using ACE as a way of showing post-season changes but I am a little concerned that there are sourcing problems with that (I have been using diffs on the statistics page to get the pre-TCR numbers).--Nilfanion 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How does this sound for the long term goal of the wikiproject, remember we are overzealous masochists: I think this is possible if we adopt a systematic approach and am prepared to be a part of that effort.--Nilfanion 11:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) All modern storm seasons in all basins to FA quality.
 * 2) All historically significant unnamed storms get articles.
 * 3) All Atlantic tropical storms, since naming began, past or future, get articles - irrespective of whether it is a Lee or a Katrina or if it is in the 1983 or the 2005 season.
 * 4) Only a few depressions - like TD 14 (1987) or TD Kendra (1966) are article-worthy.


 * Hink and I are working on TD14 (1987).HurricaneCraze32 12:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That article is certainly getting there but shouldn't you be working that article up in your user space, not at a temporary article in mainspace? Nilfanion 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was gonna not publish it, but hink seems to have changed my mind.HurricaneCraze32 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really, I don't you should publish it yet. It still needs work and more info. Hurricanehink 13:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am somewhat against those long term goals. Some modern storms simply cannot get to FA quality, like Adrian, any 2005 storm not retired (except for Emily), any WPAC one (which has yet to get an FA), or new Southern Hemisphere cyclone article (I doubt Larry has enough information to get to FA, same as other new ones). Historically significant storms should not get articles unless they have enough information. I'm gonna have to vote no on number 3. I imagined this only for 2005 and future seasons, except maybe 2003 at the absolute earliest. Anything before that has very little, even if we use the formula we've been using. However, I think the article creation criteria can be a little more lenient now, as it has been, and if anyone wants to write an older article, they should provided there's enough information. Finally, depressions should not have articles unless there's enough information. Kendra has next to no information, so why should it have an article? For now, we should work on 2005. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. For those overzealous masochists, like myself, you should work more on getting existing articles to FA class. Hurricanehink 13:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grammar error-and you get mad at me for it.I wrote the changes up on my talk.HurricaneCraze32 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Hink, I was just trying to think of criteria which are consistent. Any attempt to make prior seasons to 2003 (possibly a bit earlier) will rapidly find information problems. The NHC archives are fine for the fishspinners but if the landfalling storms don't have the impact info, they shouldn't exist and if they don't the fishspinners certainly shouldn't. By the way did you misunderstand exactly what I said in 1. the SEASON articles to FA status not the storms? That I think IS an attainable long term goal. Nilfanion 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops! That's why I'm not supposed to edit Wikipedia when I first wake up. Now that I agree with, to an extent. It might be hard for non-Atlantic (like the southern hemisphere), but Atlantic is certainly doable back to at least 1995 for FA class. Looking back at it, 2002 is possible, but no earlier, and this time I mean it! :) A lot of earlier seasons have simply too many fish storms. However, we should focus on 2005 first. We can worry about doing 2004 when we're done to see how possible it is. Hurricanehink 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote time!
Given that I opened Pandora's box by starting this discussion, I might as well try and end it, too. It's this simple. Discussion, if any, can be above with more details. Hurricanehink 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In favor of having articles for all 2005 storms
 * 1) Hurricanehink 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (including depressions) (TD's not needed)
 * 2) HurricaneCraze32 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Nilfanion 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (No to depressions check example page for TD 19)
 * 4) CrazyC83 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (2005 and future Atlantic seasons)
 * 5) Icelandic Hurricane #12 (TDs and beyond!)
 * 6) Weatherman90 (It's about time)
 * 7) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I guess, as long as there are no depressions and the season article won't be neglected, as discussed above.
 * 8) Pikachu9000 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) It would be worth a try to create an article on TD 10 and STD 22. TD19 would be really hard as there isin't much info.
 * 9) EMS | Talk 04:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (However, I can live without articles on the tropical depressions. One article for each storm is what I am supporting.)
 * 10) DavidH 04:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) . Named storms, 2005 and future, for sure, and shortening season article to be just a "table of contents" (1-2 paragraphs max each storm).
 * 11) Jake52 More insight equals better website.
 * 12) Fishhead 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Including depressions
 * 13) --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Cyclone1 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Not on Depressions It seems weird to make a full article on a weak storm like Tropical Depresiion 19. That just seems pointless.
 * 15) M cappeluti 09:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) WotGoPlunk 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC) But not on the depressions.
 * 17) Despite some serious reservations (along the lines of what NSLE says below), I'll lend support to this idea. It should be understood, of course, that no decision is final.  Any article that can be written today can be merged later (as indeed has happened before).  But since I consider the current situation (set of article criteria) unresolvably inconsistent, I think this is worth a try. — jdorje (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Against having articles for all 2005 storms
 * 1) Sarsaparilla39 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC) - No. I do not believe that a) all storms from 2005 are notable or b) that enough new information can be found and inserted which could not be compressed into the storms article. Also, putting in this extra info would set a precedent for it to also be included in all other hurricane articles. On top of that, people would also propose articles for every storm of every season as far back as credible resources allow, which is something I strongly disagree with.
 * Is this necessarily a bad thing? People come to an encyclopedia for research; I'd think they would want all the information that is available.  The "problem" that there would be "too many" articles is not an issue with Wikipedia. -- tomf688 {talk} 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I should hope that people coming to Wikipedia to research would also have the sense to follow the inline citations and external links. There is little point recreating the whole TCR when a simple link would suffice. We do not need to spoon-feed people. Outside of the archives and the TCR, you have no sources to fall back on. Link and be done with it.
 * 2) I have not yet been assured that the quality of these articles will be as good as or better than similar articles already on Wikipedia. As Nilfanion stated above, "Giving all 2005 storms articles completely negates any concept of "notability" as a criterion for any storm. It may be that the criteria for older storms articles may become 'it's at least as good as TS Lee's article in quality and content so it stays'." (Note, however, that s/he may have made his/her comments in a different context.) I am not confident in the supposed quality of an article on TS Lee (if it gets off the ground, which I am sad to see it probably will based on the support votes). It is basically the TCR rehashed. WP:WPTC should aim for quality, not quantity when it comes to storm articles. However: if you can prove to me that a detailed, comprehensive, quality article for TS Lee can be written, you have my vote. Until then, I remain against the idea. -- Sarsaparilla39 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Golbez 05:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I've changed my mind. I agree with Sarsa, if you were to go ahead and do this, then you should do it for every season back as far as possible. Not practical. NSL E (T+C) at 05:54 UTC (2006-04-08)
 * Huh? Doing this for 2005 doesn't prevent people from doing it for previous seasons; "as far as possible" just might not reach very far (to 2002ish, going by the above discussion). --AySz88 ^ -  ^  01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I this as a false and unnecessary connection. In the long run, updating the pages for the previous seasons can and may well be done, as editors who are interested in doing so come along.  However, before that becomes reasonable to do, we have to validate the new format and give it a well-defined, stable style.  That may well take another year or two to achieve.  I say let's move forward, and experiment for now with 2005 and 2006, and then next year revisit the issue of whether we want this to be the form moving forwards and if so whether we want to worry about previous years.  (Look at it this way, if we want to go back to the current style, we will only have two seasons to deal with instead of however many we updated before changing our minds.) --EMS | Talk 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is only for 2005 right now. We can decide other things, but this is only 2005. Hurricanehink 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Coredesat 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I see no need for article for menial storms. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends
 * 1) I think it depends. If you can find stuff to write about Harvey, or Irene, etc, go ahead. But if you're willing to do so, then I'd say write an article for all 2004 storms etc as well. NSL E  (T+C) at 05:00 UTC (2006-04-07)
 * 1) (leaning no) Though this has probably already been thought of, it could be possible to write an article on every storm when it forms, and (it could be possibly unworkable) then decide whether to merge it back after the system ends. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a brilliant idea! From the time a storm forms all the way to, say, two weeks after its TCR has been issued, people add every important point and trivial fact they can think of about the storm to a prototype article. Throughout, those in favor of a permanent article for the storm argue their point simply by organizing the hard data and the written insights into the most insightful and polished article possible. Those who believe that a quality article about the storm cannot be formed need not open their mouthes because, if they are correct, the article will speak for itself. Finally, a vote will be held, a two-thirds majority being necessary to keep the article separate from the main season article. Little discussion of meeting article standards will be necessary because taking a vote on every storm article will express the standards that are in the minds of the voters more clearly than could any amount of discussion. Using this procedure, the standards characterizing storm articles may or may not change significantly over the years, but they will consistantly reflect the views of the greatest number of Wikipedians on what a storm article should be.
 * Ev-Man 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic concept is workable, but thats too much of rulecruft. I mean the way that is phrased, a storm like Hurricane Katrina would have to go through a vote! And Wikipedia is NOT a democracy after all. Nilfanion 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that in the case of a storm like Hurricane Katrina my proposition is not ideal. A vote on whether to give such a storm a separate article is completely unnecessary. I also must admit that I am very new to Wikipedia and for this reason have not yet gained respect for the established order of things. I got a little carried away with my democratic ideals. Ev-Man 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As current events, storms get a huge quantity of information added but the quality is really low. Looking at Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Vince articles it takes months after the TCR comes out for information to be updated and in the meantime it is simply wrong.  Articles written on slightly older storms, once they are completed, typically are higher quality than ones written on current events.  The reason for this is probably a combination of the so-called "too many cooks" syndrome, lack of sources or conflicting current-event media sources, and the fact that it is simply "more cool" to write new text than to delete existing text and replace it.  For most storms 90% of the information in the article should come from the TCR, and it is usually easier to start from there and then add on than it is to have the article written and then have to update it after the TCR is released.  So, if we do as you suggest, then two weeks after a TCR is released and the article still hasn't been properly updated, how will you vote? — jdorje (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As you have certainly concluded, I have never participated in the creation of an article relating to a hurricane season. After reading your comments, I agree that it is more logical to wait until a storm's TCR has come out before beginning the process of writing a quality article on the storm. Any additional and non-conflicting information can be added to the information garnered from the TCR. I also see now that a storm article would quite likely not be as complete as possible within two weeks of the TCR's release. I therefore agree that the wait before the vote should be much longer than two weeks. Ev-Man 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about saying the pre-TCR data is "wrong", the "right" data is whatever the NHC said in its most recent take on the storm. So before the TCR it is the advisory data, and it was correct to say Cindy was a TS until the TCR came out. Likewise the "correct" data on Andrew was it was a Cat 4 at its Florida landfall and that was only changed in 2005. Nilfanion 22:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some information - like the storm history - is just outdated when the TCR comes out and needs to be updated (even so, updating it is nearly as hard as writing it from scratch since every tiny detail may be changed slightly between advisory and TCR data). But a lot of information about the impact and aftermath in the Katrina, Rita, and Wilma articles was simply wrong.  Some of this was prefixed by conditionals ("At this point, XXX damage has been reported") but often those conditionals are too vague.  This goes back to the issue of low quality.  It is certainly possible to write high-quality articles about current events; a lot of the problem is that information gets added quickly by many users and often without sources or fact-checking. — jdorje (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eternally vacillating
 * 1) I can't make up my mind, so made my own category for voting instead. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 13:59 (UTC)

Listen
Tropical Depressions dont need all the articles they need. Lets put 1 article on 10 & 19. 22 i think deserves a spot in Tammy's if this goes through.HurricaneCraze32 15:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 10 should be with Katrina and 19 and 22 with Tammy, because 22 may have formed from 19. Icelandic Hurricane #12 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But 22 had nothing to do with Tammy directly (and therefore 19 had about as much to do with Tammy as Katrina), and everything to do with the NE flooding. I say it depends what happens to the list article if all named storms have articles. If the list article stays as is they aren't needed - there is nothing more to say beyond the list. If the list is trimmed perhaps an article called 'Tropical Depressions of the 2005 AHS' would work. Nilfanion 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I say to put all of the depressions into a single page, if they are given a page at all. Technically, there are seperate systems from any other tropical cyclone, and should be treated as such.  My preference is to mention them on the main storm season pages, but not to cover them otherwise.  However, any rule for tropical depression coverage must be simple and consistently implemented. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, don't make articles about depressions; how much can be written about them? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So Are we done? Is this vote over? How long until we make a final decision? Cyclone1 17:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My advice is to wait until a week has passed (4/13 or 4/14). That is a bit longer then the 5 days for WP:AfD discussions, and so should be long enough to be considered "fair" by everyone.  Beyond that, a "rough consensus" (for which I believe that current rule is at least 2:1 support) needs to have been established.  (At this time, I does exist and seems unlikely to dissipate, but I advise waiting a few extra days anyway for the sake of fairness.) --EMS | Talk 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

One other exception - there should be no article for the unnamed subtropical storm, for two reasons: 1) Lack of any information on the storm, unless we treat it as an article for a non-tropical cyclone, and 2) No clear name for the article. CrazyC83 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be Unnamed Tropical Storm (2005). However, that does put a big dent in the whole idea. We could treat it as a tropical depression; no article yet it gets mentions everywhere. Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely you mean Unnamed Subtropical Storm (2005) Hink? I think it is consistent to treat the unnamed storm like a TD and not give it an article, primarily because of the information shortage. With all the named storms we have a full TCR and the advisories to get info from (and possibly many other sources) however with the TDs we do not have the full TCRs and with the 'new' storm we do not have any advisories. Nilfanion 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yea. OK, so if the every storm idea is implemented (which it looks like it is), this will be treated as a tropical depression- no article. Hurricanehink 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Katrina bodies
9 more dead bodies found from Katrina  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.27.163 (talk • contribs).

Harvey
Does anyone about the thing near the map of where Harvey dissipates after going extratropical. In the area, it shows a brief TD. Is this an error or what? Pikachu9000 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is Harvey as a low, not a TD. In the TCR it says "the cyclone lost all frontal characteristics late on 12 August... " That means it was briefly NOT extratropical for that period presumably. Nilfanion 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Pikachu9000 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is this: A "low", as described by the NHC, is a tropical system that has little circulation but enough to be more than a wave. Extratropical means it has its circulation intact but no tropical characteristics. CrazyC83 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Early Formation
So with the Unnamed Storm, would that changed the status of early formation of the latter storms as well? tdwuhs
 * Great Thought!! but actually Nope it dosn't because the 19th Storm of the 1995 Season and 1933 Season was much later. Stan of course missed it's record by a day to the 1933 Season, but the Unnamed Subtropical Storm of 2005 is a record for "Earliest Formation of a season's 19th Storm" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FreeSledder (talk • contribs).

That's what I was saying. Wouldn't the Unnamed Storm efect the early formation of storms after it, not before it. Like:


 * 19	Unnamed		-21 Days
 * 20	Tammy		-21 Days
 * 21	Vince		-37 Days

tdwuhs


 * Yes. — jdorje (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also means Wilma loses 1 record.HurricaneCraze32 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Subtropical Report
The report on the Unnamed Subtropical Storm has been released. There were no damages or casualties, but the system that absorbed it later became Hurricane Vince. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that they mention that the storm could have been fully tropical for a very short time. --Coredesat 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It never says anything about TD19; I'm still wondering if they had any connections. Otherwise, this (in my book) would be Subtropical Storm 31. Also what is that island shown on the track map that it crossed over? That looks like a landfall to me... CrazyC83 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Sao Miguel. Same shape and general area. Jake52
 * Looking at the map in the TCR, the storm just skirted to the W of the island without making landfall. Nilfanion 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Will the Unnamed Storm be added to the season summary under the month of October? tduwhs
 * It should be, a storm is a storm! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.137.216 (talk • contribs).
 * I added a couple of sentences about it there. Bootstoots 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it also be added to the List of Storms box at the top of the Storms section? -- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I know isn't not as ordered that way but it still belongs there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.249.250 (talk • contribs).